Core Response #1

Dr. Henry Jenkins's piece "Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten," his reclamation of the tendencies of fan culture as worthy in terms of both their intellectual rigor and as objects of academic study, seems to operate in a certain set of imposed binaries, ones which point to his underlying understanding of a more intellectual approach to media objects. This especially pertains to his subject, that of Trekkies and the products of their fandom, which provides a fairly rich and wide canvas to study, for reasons which go largely unaddressed by Jenkins. It is both a singular franchise — all of the television shows, films, and miscellaneous supplementary material, take place largely in the same universe, or are otherwise interrelated by the loose bounds of science-fiction rules — and multiple: so far, there have been seven distinct, largely unrelated television shows, which generally focus on different sets of characters and settings, and which contain their own tones, house styles, and narrative foci.

Correspondingly, therein lies the possibilities of multiple fandoms under the larger umbrella of Trekkie: those who focus entirely on The Next Generation, people who swear fealty to The Original Series, fans of Deep Space Nine, and so on and so forth. However, Jenkins seems to ignore the possibility of a multivalent and uncontainable media franchise: while not clearly delineated as such in the piece, the original series and specifically the vague outlines of the main characters appear to be the subjects, whereas the other series go without any mention whatsoever. While this in and of itself would not call into question the piece's thesis, its situation in the context of fan culture's reception and the fan fiction that has been written about it does. Jenkins' conception is of that of fan and creator without any opportunity for crossover or effect from either end, which, after all, plays an enormous role in the development of a television series and franchise. Likewise, his castigation of media outlets and academics as naysayers to fandom, especially with Robin Wood's categorization of fantasy film fans as infantile and reactionary, ignores the possible political or psychological resonances that must be considered in any full assessment of the influences (and influence) of fan culture. This is not to totally invalidate Jenkins's individual points, but his overarching argument suffers from a clear lack of social and analytical context.